Plains Dedicated Finance LLC s v. Peterbilt Motors Company

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: January 5, 2023
• Docket: 1:22-cv-01615
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 22-cv-01615-CMA-MDB

PLAINS DEDICATED FINANCE LLC, a/k/a Norman Williams,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETERBILT MOTORS COMPANY, a division of PACCAR Inc., and CUMMINS, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the December 19, 2022 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 32). Therein, Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell recommends that this Court grant Defendant Peterbilt Motors Company’s (“PACCAR”) and Defendant Cummins, Inc.’s respective Motions to Dismiss (Doc. ## 10, 28) and dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s second and third claims for breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and breach of an implied warranty. Judge Dominguez Braswell further recommends that the Court dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s first claim for breach of an express warranty. The Court affirms and adopts the Recommendation for the following reasons. “[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”)). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 32 at 15–16.) No party has filed any objection, and the time to do so has now expired. Having reviewed the Recommendation, the relevant portions of the record, and

applicable legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: • The December 19, 2022 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 32) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court; and • Defendant PACCAR’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 10) and Defendant Cummins, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 28) are GRANTED. • Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second and third claims for relief are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;1 and

• Plaintiff’s first claim for relief is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1 A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where a complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and granting leave to amend would be futile. Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10th Cir. 2006). e Plaintiff shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to file a motion for leave to amend, together with a proposed amended complaint correcting the pleading deficiencies identified in the Recommendation, otherwise its first claim for breach of an express warranty will be dismissed with prejudice. DATED: January 5, 2023 BY THE COURT:

Senior United States District Judge